April 18, 2001
volume 12, no. 108

Refuting more liberal lies!

    To give you an example of what pro-lifers are up against, the following appeared in Newsweek two weeks ago and was written by Anna Quindlen, who has often written in favor of legal abortions. As in the case of all pro-choicers, she is unable to separate fact from fiction -- truth from fantasy, or maybe to be pro-choice, one must be a natural born liar. Her views are in italics -- followed by my comments.

    Most coverage of the debate over research using embryo stem cells or fetal tissue implies that it has gotten tangled up with the politics of abortion because pro-lifers have irrationally connected the two, and the likelihood that research using embryos might change attitudes toward abortion is a reason to favor the research.

    The truth of the matter is that pro-lifers do not want unborn babies to be killed because it is barbaric and uncivilized. In short, it is murder. The only difference between an unborn baby and a born baby, or a child or an adult is time. For fear that Ms Quindlen might be an atheist, I won’t say that it also mocks God, by breaking His commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

    There’s not a scientist in the world, who could deny that human life begins at conception. When the sperm fertilizes the egg -- THAT’S IT - a new human being. The DNA is set. There is NO question.

    The idea that abortion could indirectly result in fantastic medical advances might move pregnant women, and citizens generally, in a pro-abortion direction.

    NEVER have I heard any pro-lifer say that abortions could result in fantastic medical advances. This is what she would like to project -- another bald-faced lie. Besides it is NOT true. Studies have shown that adult stem cells are much better and have shown more promise. Also, no good will ever come from an evil act.

    She says that, “many people still see abortions as a negative act.”

    Gee, all along that’s what I thought. How could I possibly consider that the killing of 1.4 million babies every year (96 % for convenience sake) was a negative act? Thanks to Quindlen and the rest of the pro-choicers, we now know that the torture and death of 40 million children since Roe Vs. Wade is a positive act and the lives of these babies mean absolutely nothing to them. The suffering of women who had their babies killed, also must be considered a positive act for them.

    She depicts in her column that pro-lifers are zealots and a party of emotion -- a result of dumb perception -- not intellectual, while pro-choicers are more thoughtful and reasonable.

    So, pro-choicers are more thoughtful and reasonable. Pardon me while I have a good belly laugh. I’ve already proven that pro-choicers are none of the above. No need to do it again -- just wanted to show the world how these people (pro-choicers) think, connive and twist the truth. All to condone and propagate the proposition that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn child if she so chooses, even if her child suffers excruciating pain.

    They are no more worried about the health of people than I am worried that the sun will not set tomorrow.

    She writes: "Some who believe that life begins at conception may look --”

    Again, she has NOT done her homework. It is irrefutable -- human life DOES begin at conception. These lies perpetuated by those who say that a woman should have the right to kill her baby if she so chooses, will not go unnoticed.

    She goes on, “may look into the vacant eyes of an adored parent with Alzheimer's or picture a paralyzed child walking again, and take a closer look at what an embryo really is. It may be an oversimplification to say that real live loved ones trump the imagined unborn, that a cluster of undifferentiated cells due to be discarded anyway is a small price to pay for the health and welfare of millions."

    I have never read such garbage. Even as a physician, I have never pictured a paralyzed child and had the desire to look closer at what an embryo really is and I seriously doubt that any other pro-lifer has had that desire. Then when she says that real live loved ones trumps the imagined unborn, I have to say that Ms Quindlen doesn’t know what real love is.

    Real love is NOT killing your child to make your life easier.

    Real love is NOT condoning and propagating (pro-choicers) women to kill their children.

    Real love is NOT ignoring the health of women following abortions by denying them information about risks of abortions, including the increased risk of breast cancer and other post abortion complications, both physical and mental.

    Real love is NOT reveling in the fact that babies are torn apart with many suffering excruciating pain.

    It seems that this writer can’t write one sentence without twisting the truth. Unborn babies are NOT imagined. They are NOT potential life. They are as real as her lack of knowledge when it comes to human life issues.

    The cells in an embryo are not just some haphazard cluster of cells. They are more precise, organized and direction bound than the most sophisticated computer -- unlike Ms Quindlen. And as for killing them is a small price to pay for the health and welfare of millions -- as I’ve said before, studies have shown that adult stem cells are better suited than embryo stem cells.

    Since she is so worried about the health of millions and I hope somehow, she reads this -- how about you, Ms Quindlen, research the link between abortions and breast cancer. You can tell your readers that 13 of 15 studies done in the United States have shown the link and 27 of 34 worldwide.

    Thousands of women are dying every year from breast cancer because they were not told of the risk prior to having their baby killed. The News Media, which you are a part of, is keeping this life saving information, “America’s best kept secret.” The American Cancer Society is also withholding this risk.

    How the ACS can continue to perpetuate this cover-up, is mind boggling, in view of the fact that their own man, Dr. Clark Heath, who is the head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the American Cancer Society, on February 20, 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer risk. The longer the time to her first term delivery, the greater the risk.

    Quite a concession, isn't it? So then, why aren’t women told of this one aspect, before they have an abortion and why don't we hear of this on TV, or read about it in the newspapers? Why didn't it make the headlines and why isn't it included with all the other breast cancer risks? At least many lives would be saved, even if they ignore the 27 studies that showed the increased risk of breast cancer following ALL abortions and not just the first one.

    Do abortions mean that much to them, that they don't care if thousands of women die every year, because of their withholding the truth? Products have been pulled from the shelves with MUCH LESS evidence. How could this happen in the United States of America? For more information on this subject see: hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortioncancer.html

    And why is this life saving information brazenly being withheld -- pure politics. It is better that women die from breast cancer that to harm the abortion industry. This, my dear Quindlen, is the TRUTH.

    Now, if you are so concerned about health problems, which you claim to be -- let this be your next assignment. Write to me and I will give you all the proof you need. Ah, but you won’t. You are pro-choice and you will do NOTHING to save lives, if it means that the abortion industry has to be excoriated, nay, history bound. You are the political one.

    While you’re at it, you can also warn women that abortions increase the risk of subsequent premature births, resulting in low birth weights and thus the babies are much more prone to be born with mental and physical complications, including cerebral palsy. You can also mention the myriad of complications that arise when one kills their child -- not just physical, but mental as well -- leading to alcohol and drug abuse and even suicide.

    Again Ms Quindlen, if you want the figures, just write to me. Just think, a person so concerned about the health of others as you, will feel great that you, at last have done so much to alleviate the suffering and death of thousands of women.

    OK, Ms Quindlen, the ball is in your court as they say. Put your money where your mouth is, or should I say where your keyboard is. Write to me and get all the facts. It is much better than deception and outright lies.

Dr. Frank Joseph

For past columns by Dr. Frank, see PRO-LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS Archives

April 18, 2001
volume 12, no. 108
Dr. Frank Joseph's PRO LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS column
Return to Today's Issue